Draft of Draft

Lauren Mitchell and Marli Overgard

(all paragraphs are still in development)

Demagoguery is often used by politicians to appeal to their audience emotions using prejudices. One should fear demagoguery, because politicians use it in a manipulative way to rally their audience up and make them support their ideals. Patricia Roberts Miller states that demagoguery consists of elements of polarization, victimization, demonization, and dehumanization. Henry Wallace, the governor of Alabama in 1963, was known as a true demagogue. During his inauguration speech, he displayed many elements of demagoguery as he was challenging the federals government’s push to end segregation. People should fear demagoguery because it could be occurring currently in the 2016 Presidential campaign by candidate, Donald Trump. In this paper, Trump’s speeches will be contrasted with Wallace’s inauguration speech to determine if Trump is a true demagogue.

 

Wallace uses the element of polarization to manipulate his audience and confer his ideas. Roberts-Miller explains that polarization is one of the most convincing qualities in demagoguery. It is the strategy of placing ideals in an out-group and an in-group. Wallace utilizes this element strongly in his speech to separate Southerners from those supporting the Federal Government.

 

Wallace is against desegregation and dehumanizes the African American community to convince his Southern audience that segregation is needed. Wallace uses dehumanization and treats African Americans like children stating, “We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station.” He dehumanizes them by saying they need permission to work. By dehumanizing African Americans, Wallace justifies segregation because it makes it seem as if African Americans’ feelings and livelihoods don’t matter as much as white southerners.

 

The element of victimization is used by Wallace to place blame on others. Wallace brands Southerners as victims and makes them feel like segregation would ruin their futures. By using victimization, Wallace appeals to the emotions of his Southern audience. He wants to make them fear desegregation.

 

A big portion of Wallace’s speech focuses on his repugnance for the Federal Government. He demonizes the government so that his audience becomes fearful. By stating, “It is a system that is very opposite of Christ,” Wallace is comparing the government to the anti-Christ, or Satan. He wants them stop relying on the government for help. He believes that the government eliminates faith and in its place creates fear. Wallace does this to convince his audience that the Federal Government’s idea of desegregation is against God.

 

(The next half of the paper will focus on Trump’s speeches. We will compare Trump’s words with Wallace’s and see if there are any of the same elements of demagoguery.)

 

03/1/16

1. The premise of Wallace’s speech is to challenge the government in their actions toward eliminating segregation. To turn the audience against the government, Wallace uses an element of demagoguery called demonization. Demonization is essentiality dehumanizing a group of people and making them seem evil. By stating, “It is a system that is very opposite of Christ,” Wallace is comparing the government to the anti-Christ, or Satan. He demonizes the government so that his audience becomes fearful. He wants them stop relying on the government for help. He believes that the government eliminates faith and in its place creates fear. The possible effects of demonization could be his audience begins to fear and go against the government. If the audience becomes against the government, then they will start to disagree with its ideas. Specifically, the idea of eliminating segregation. That is Wallace’s ultimate goal.
2. “But the strong, simple faith and sane reasoning of our founding fathers has long since been forgotten as the so-called “progressives” tell us that our Constitution was written for “horse and buggy” days, so were the Ten Commandments.” I believe Wallace is using a false analogy when speaking this quote. I think there is a missing link between the Constitution and the Ten Commandments. The main missing link is the fact that the Constitution was created with the mindset of Religion and State separate. Therefore, it is faulty to compare the Constitution with the Ten Commandments in any sense. Wallace is using a false analogy, that in my mind weakens his argument.
3. The first thing that jumped out at me about Trump’s language was repetition. When Trump is trying to make a specific point, he states it at least two times. By doing so, he is drilling the idea into his audience’s minds, making them remember important points of his speech. What was interesting to me about Trump’s language is that it is easily understood. I think he intended to use basic English so that all citizens, educated and uneducated could understand his ideas and policies. Most politicians will not make the language applicable to all citizens, and I think it was a clever strategy on Trump’s part. I think one aspect of demagoguery I can kind of see in Trump’s speech is victimization. Trump repeatedly says that we are losing to countries. He also repeatedly blames Mexico for sending “bad people.” He argues that we are the “dumping ground for the rest of the world’s problems,” which makes us seem like a victim. I think more of Trump’s speeches would need to be analyzed to find more demagoguery.

Homework for 02/29/16

1. If you are not a Southern white man who believes in segregation, you seem to be in the outgroup according to Wallace’s speech. The in group in his opinion are the rooted Southerner’s who believe that keeping the traditional ways of the country is the best way to go. He places African Americans in the outgroup. He places the government officials who are trying to eliminate segregation in the outgroup.
2. The ingroup is the Southerners. They are the white men, women, and children who live a traditional lifestyle.
3. Wallace uses polarization to state that there are only two choices. The two choices are either segregation happens and our country has a better future, or segregation gets eliminated and our country’s future is in danger. It is kind of like he categorizes it as good vs. evil. He believes that eliminating segregation would just hurt our country.
4. Wallace creates a sense of insecurity by stating that our children’s futures are in turmoil. He relays a connotation that the white people are the victims if segregation was eliminated.
5. Wallace uses victimization, but not in the way people would expect it. Most people would expect that the group who is the victim of segregation is African American, but no. Wallace believes that white people had been the victims all along. Wallace also has a lot of fallacies in his argument. He also uses dehumanization and treats African Americans like children stating, “We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station.” He dehumanizes them by saying they need permission to work.

Homework 2/24/16

Part One:

• The toulmin model consists of 6 parts to an argument: claim, warrant, evidence, backing, qualification, and rebuttal
• The three essential parts: claim, warrant, evidence
• Claim: the position of an argument being taken (can be called the thesis)
• Warrant: the principle or chain of reasoning that connects a reason to a claim
• Even though the toulmin model is good for evaluating arguments, it is not the best model for generating arguments.
• Six common reasoning chains:
• Generalization: assumes that what is good for a substantial amount of people is good for the population.
• Analogy: reasoning by using a nature or outcome of one event to a similar event.
• Sign: the reasoning that some things are suggestive of some outcome.
• Causality: most complex reasoning
• Authority: using the authority of the author or text to reason.
• Principle: using a principle to justify a situation that exists within that principle.
• Assumptions: taken for granted ways of viewing the world. They are hard to find.
• Implications: what can be inferred from an argument.

Questions:

• What is the difference between backing and evidence?
• What exactly is a causality reasoning chain?

 

Part Two:

1. Wallace uses polarization: He believes that if you are not with him then you are against him. He also believes that Alabamans or Southerners in general are the best the nation has.
2. Wallace uses in-group/out-group: The in group is the Southerners and how they have the option and right to vote for this choice of segregation or not. He is pretty much stating that if you are a Southerner you are in the in-group but if you are a citizen of color than you are a part of the out group.
3. Dehumanizing: He also treats the black community like they are the out-group. He states “We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station.” He is pretty much dehumanizing and treating the African American community like children, because he is giving them permission.

Final Paper

Marli Overgard

RWS200

Prof. Werry

02/22/16

The Troubling Business: A Look into the Debate on For-Profits

Higher education is an intricate system. For-profits, public universities, and non-profit colleges all have their faults. In recent years, for-profits have been at the center of a fiery debate in the higher education sector of the country. Kevin Carey, author of “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profits?” analyzes the for-profit debate in his article. Written for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Carey’s main audience is scholars. Carey wrote the article at a pinnacle time when scandals were surrounding for-profits. The main dispute of the debate is whether or not for-profits should be eliminated from higher education. In his article, Carey backs up the obscure side of the argument and defends for-profits and their place in higher education. Carey’s main claim in the article is that even though for-profits have been targeted for many problems, they are needed because they are innovative and have the necessary resources to solve problems traditional universities cannot. In this essay, I will evaluate Carey’s claims using outside sources and determine whether or not he effectively persuades his audience.

The heat of the for-profit debate was rising in 2010, the same year Carey wrote this article. To better comprehend the article, the audience and context needs to be understood. The Chronicle of Higher Education is an online resource and magazine that is targeted towards scholars. These scholars consist of professors, university faculty, researchers, etc. We can therefore assume that the audience is well educated in what is happening in higher education. Carey’s article was written at the same time the for-profit debate was heating up. 2010 was the year the Obama Administration was proposing legislation that would help students find employment and not leave them with an abundant amount of debt (Carey 47). The proposal meant that for-profits would be held to a stricter standard relating to student loans. Carey’s article focuses on the disadvantages and benefits of for-profits sticking around in higher education. It is important to understand that Carey’s audience could be from a for-profit background or a traditional university background. That ultimately means Carey needs to effectively persuade both sides to agree to his main claim.

Michael Clifford is an important aspect in Carey’s article. He is a key player in for-profits and Carey uses him as a symbol of the debate. “He never went to college, but sometimes he calls himself “Doctor.” (Carey 47) Carey begins the article with this statement to illustrate Clifford as a conceited man. But a few paragraphs later Carey praises Clifford by calling him an “interesting man-sincere, optimistic, a true believer in higher education and his role as a force for good.” (Carey 48) Carey’s description of Clifford is contradicting, but he does that for a purpose. He wants to use Clifford as a symbol of the contradictions that for-profits contain. Clifford can be looked at as a bad guy and a good guy. The same way goes for for-profits in Carey’s view. Carey believes that for-profits can be seen as good and bad. Using Clifford, a big name in the for-profit industry, Carey builds the articles credibility. Clifford is the representation of the problems and advantages Carey sees in for-profits.

Carey begins his article by stating the reasons for-profits can be seen as problematic. His first claim in this portion of the text focuses on the aggressive recruiting techniques for-profits use. “Horror stories of aggressive recruiters’ inducing students to take out huge loans for nearly worthless degrees are filling the news.” (Carey 47) Carey claims that for-profits are cheating their students by making them pay an atrocious amount of money to earn a degree that is worth almost nothing. These forceful and devious techniques have been backed up by many outside studies and examples. “The Government Accountability Report for For-Profits” contain countless examples of problematic techniques for-profit recruits use. The report sent undercover applicants to fifteen for-profit colleges to examine the recruiting techniques. The report states that “all fifteen colleges made some type of deceptive or otherwise questionable statement to undercover applicants.” (“The Government Accountability Report” 8) These statements included misjudgment in future salary, graduation rate, and student loans. In Holly Petreaus’ article, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” Petreaus relays the idea that for-profits are aggressively recruiting veterans to reach a certain quota. She explains that for-profits must have ten percent of its income coming from a source outside of Title IV. Because the G.I. Bill is not included in Title IV, veterans seem like an easy target to reach the ten percent quota. Petreaus’ example backs up the claim that recruiting techniques are problematic. She even states “As the PBS program “Frontline” reported, the recruiter signed up Marines with serious brain injuries.” (Petreaus 5) This backs up the claim of intense recruiting techniques, because recruiters are willing to trick anyone into an education as long as they reach the ten percent quota. Both of these outside studies and examples uphold Carey’s claim that for-profits use aggressive and deceitful recruiting practices.

Carey links his first claim with his second main claim that states for-profits leave students in an abundance amount of debt. First, the for-profit recruits anyone they can including, war veterans, low income personals, and anyone who cannot get into a traditional university. Second, the for-profits deceitfully encourage their future students to sign up for countless student loans. The recruiters will comfort their students by instilling false hope for a job right after graduation and an easy payback for their debt. In most situations with for-profits, that is far from the truth. In the College Inc. documentary, women who went through for-profit nursing programs were left jobless and in a profuse amount of debt, because of the false hopes they were given. Carey states that Clifford “won’t even acknowledge that student borrowing is related to how much colleges charge.” (Carey 48)  If a key player in for-profit industry cannot find responsibility in the detrimental student loan situation, then for-profits in general do not seem to take responsibility for their students’ debt problems. In “The Government Accountability Report for For-Profits,” each undercover applicant told their recruiters they had inherited 250,000 dollars. That amount of money would be enough to pay for any program, yet the recruiters still encouraged the applicants to take out loans. These findings back up Carey’s claim that for-profits leave students in debt and unfortunately do not feel responsible for doing so.

Carey’s first half of the article analyzes the claims on why for-profits are seen as problematic. Halfway through, the arguments in the article take a complete switch. Carey starts relaying the claims that reason why for-profits are useful and why they should stay in the higher education system. Before analyzing the main claims of the second half, it should be understood why Carey did a complete switch. To gain credibility Carey needed to show that he can see both sides. It will be shown that Carey is for for-profits, but Carey knew that is not the popular stance. For Carey to make his audience of scholars listen, he needed to show that he acknowledges the more accepted side. It is an effective strategy, because it strengthens his ethos. No audience, especially scholars, would be at all persuaded to an argument that does not acknowledge the opposing view. Carey’s strategy of laying out the popular claims first is effective, but outside evidence would show that the claims he makes in the second half are overall weak.

Carey’s stance and the main claims he is trying to argue are found in the second half of the article. Carey claims that even though there are problematic parts to for-profits, they are needed, because they have innovation and technology and are willing to serve student and solve problems that traditional universities do not. Carey uses examples to back up his claim. One example he uses is how American Public University has a deal to educate Wal-Mart employees. He argues that traditional universities do not want to educate low income individuals by calling them “walled-off academic city-states.” (Carey 49) This description of traditional universities shows that Carey sees them as ritzy schools with little care for the lower income sector of the country. In the “The Government Accountability Report for For-Profits,” it was found that “tuition in 14 out of 15 cases, regardless of the degree, was more expensive at the for-profit college than at the closest public college.” (“The Government Accountability Report 10). That brings up a critical question. If Carey believes that for-profits aid better to low income personal, then why is the schooling so much more expensive? And even though the for-profits can educate virtually anyone, is it right for those people to receive that education? For-profits are seen as a business. That seems to take out any emotional attachment recruiters would have to their students. The recruiters cannot worry about what is going to happen to the students they recruit, they just need to get a certain number to keep receiving a paycheck. This is very problematic and the exact opposite of helping low income individuals. Kaplan University’s recruiting documents show how recruits are supposed to create a sense of urgency in the applicant. They want to make the students feel like they have to start their education right away, even if the student is not finically ready. When Petreaus states that for-profits were recruiting brain damaged Marines, that raises the argument that they truly do not care about who they recruit. It’s not right to sign up someone for an education if the next day they will forget they even signed up. This addresses the critical question. It would not be right to give a struggling person an expensive education, even if they can easily sign up. Therefore, Carey’s claim that for-profits are good, because they have the necessary resources to provide education to lower income individual is weak.

The idea of accreditation is a major claim Carey uses to argue that for-profits are not fundamentally bad. He states that traditional universities try to argue that the quality of for-profit degrees are worse than a traditional institution’s degree. Carey then goes on to claim there is little evidence to prove that. What is contradicting in this argument is in the first half of the article, Carey states “the combination of government subsidies and financially unsophisticated consumer guarantees outright fraud or programs that, while technically legitimate, are so substandard that the distinction of legitimacy has no meaning.” (Carey 48) In short, Carey is stating that for-profits provide insufficient programs to their students. Therefore, if the students are getting substandard education, wouldn’t mean that their degrees have no legitimate meaning too? His contradicting ideas tremendously weaken his argument. Carey argues in the second half of his article that traditional universities pride themselves in regional accreditation, yet many for-profits are accredited too. He then goes on to argue that there is no legitimate way in knowing whether or not the education a student is receiving from a for-profit is better or worse and a traditional universities’ education. That raises the question, is there not other ways to figure out if a school has better academic quality? For instance, if one was accepted into Princeton and Grossmount Community College, the applicant would not question that Princeton has better academic quality and therefore a more substantial degree. Carey’s idea that academic quality cannot be proven is weak.

Carey argues numerous claims in “Why Do You Think They Are Called For-Profits?” published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Even though his strategy of addressing the popular side of the debate is clever in gaining ethos from his scholarly audience, his arguments for for-profits fall short of being persuasive. Carey’s claims in the second half are easily questioned and easily refuted. His overall claim that even though for-profits have problems, they are needed in higher education, because they are innovation and have the resources essential to solving problems traditional institutions cannot is a weak argument. Although, Carey did use examples for evidence to uphold his main claim that was pro-for-profits, there is more substantial outside evidence that refuse his position and strengthens the opposing view. Carey is not the only one to have an opinion about for-profits. The debate has been going on for quite sometime, and will continue as long as higher education is around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Carey, Kevin. “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 25 July 2010. Web.

Excerpts from Government Accountability Report on For-Profit Universities-GAO-10-948T at 7 (2010). Print.

Petreaus, Holly. “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s.” New York Times. N.p., 21 Sept. 2011. Web.

Rough Draft

Marli Overgard

02/10/16

Higher education is an intricate system. There is no way around the complexity. For-profits, public universities, and non-profits colleges all have their faults. In the recent years, for-profits have been targeted for problems that have surfaced. Kevin Carey, author of “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profits?” lays out the debate of for-profits. Carey is an accredited writer whom has spent a majority of his career working in higher education. Written for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Carey’s main audience is scholars. The article Carey wrote came out at a pinnacle time when scandals surrounded for-profits. The debate focuses on whether or not for-profits should be eliminated from higher education. In his article, Carey takes a particular stance that defends for-profits and their place in higher education. Carey’s main claim in the article is that even though for-profits have been targeted for many problems, they are needed because they are innovative and have the necessary resources to solve problems traditional universities cannot solve. In this essay, I will evaluate Carey’s claims using outside sources and determine whether or not he effectively persuades his audience.

To better comprehend the article, the audience and context needs to be understood. The Chronicle of Higher Education is an online resource and magazine that targets scholars. These scholars consist of professors, university facility, researchers, etc. Carey’s article was written in 2010, the same time the Obama Administration was proposing legislation that would help students find employment and not leave them in abundance amount of debt. The proposal mainly meant that for-profits would be held to stricter standards related to student loans. Carey’s article focuses on the disadvantages and benefits of for-profits sticking around. It is important to understand that Carey’s audience could be coming from a for-profit background, or a traditional university background. This means that Carey’s article needs to effectively persuade both sides to agree to his main claim.

Carey begins his article by stating the reasons for-profits can be seen as problematic. His first claim in this portion of the text focuses on the aggressive recruiting techniques for-profits use. These forceful and devious recruiting techniques have been backed up by many outside studies and examples. “The Government Accountability Report for For-Profits” contain countless examples of the problematic techniques for-profit recruits use. The report sent undercover applicants to fifteen for-profit colleges to examine the recruiting techniques. The report states that “all fifteen colleges made some type of deceptive or otherwise questionable statement to undercover applicants.” These statements included misjudgment in future salary, graduation rate, and student loans. In Holly Petreaus’ article, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” Petreaus relays the idea for-profits are aggressively recruiting veterans to reach a certain quota. She explains that for-profits need to have at least ten percent of its income must come from a source outside of Title IV. Because the G.I. Bill is not included in Title IV, veterans seem like an easy target to reach the ten percent quota. Petreaus’ example backs up the claim that recruiting techniques are problematic. She even states that recruiters will encourage brain damaged veterans to attend the for-profits even if they can’t remember signing up. Both of these outside studies and examples uphold Carey’s claim that for-profits use aggressive and deceitful recruiting practices.

Carey links his first claim with his second main claim that states for-profits leave students in an abundance amount of debt. First, the for-profit recruits anyone they can including, war veterans, low income personals, and anyone that can’t get into a traditional university. Second, the for-profits deceitfully encourage their future students to sign up for countless student loans. The recruiters will comfort their students by instilling false hope for a job right after graduation, and an easy payback for their debt. In most situations with for-profits, that is far from the truth. Carey’s states that Michael Clifford, a millionaire and entrepreneur in the for-profit market, takes no responsibility for the amount students borrow even though it can be assumed that the amount students take out in loans is directly linked to the price tag of the school. In “The Government Accountability Report for For-Profits,” each undercover applicant told their recruiters that they had just inherited 250,000 dollars. That amount of money would be enough to pay for any program, yet the recruiters still encouraged the applicants to take out loans. In the College Inc. documentary, women who went through for-profit nursing programs were left jobless and in a profuse amount of debt, because of the false hopes they were given.

Carey’s first half of the article lays out the claims on why for-profits are seen as problematic. All of a sudden, the arguments in the article does a complete switch. Carey starts relaying the claims that reason with why for-profits are useful and should be here to stay. Before analyzing the main claims of the second half, it should be understood why Carey did a complete switch. To gain credibility, Carey needed to show that he can see both sides. It will be shown that Carey is for for-profits, but Carey knew that is not a popular stance. For Carey to make his audience of scholars listen, he needed to show that he acknowledges the more accepted side. It is an effective strategy on Carey’s part, because it strengthens his ethos. No audience, especially scholars, would be at all persuaded to an argument that does not acknowledge the opposing view points. Carey’s strategy of laying out the popular claims first is effective, but outside evidence would show that the claims he makes in the second half are overall weak.

The main claims of the whole article Carey are trying to argue lie in the second half. Carey claims that even though there are corrupt parts to for-profits, they are needed, because they have innovation and technology and are willing to serve students and solve problems that traditional universities do not have the resources for. Carey examples to back up his claim. One example he uses is how American Public University has a deal to educate Wal-Mart employees. He argues that traditional universities do not have the means to educate low income individuals, or individuals that academically cannot get into their university. That brings up a critical question. Even though for-profits can provide education to virtually anyone, is it right for those people to receive the education? Kaplan University’s recruiting documents show how recruits are supposed to create a sense of urgency in the applicant. They want to make the students feel like they have to start their education right away, even if they are not financially ready. This address the critical question. It would not be right to give a struggling person an expensive education, even if they can easily sign up. Therefore, Carey’s claim that for-profits are good, because they have the necessary resources to provide education to lower income persons is weak.

The idea of accreditation is a major claim Carey uses to argue that for-profits are not fundamentally bad. He states that traditional universities try to argue that the quality of for-profit degrees are worse than a traditional institution’s degree. Carey then goes on to claim that there is little evidence to prove it. What is contradicting in this argument is that in the first half of the article, Carey states that “the combination of government subsidies and financially unsophisticated consumer guarantees outright fraud or programs that, while technically legitimate, are so substandard that the distinction of legitimacy has no meaning.” In short, Carey is stating that for-profits provide insufficient programs to their students. Therefore, if the students are getting substandard education, wouldn’t it mean that their degrees have no legitimate meaning too? His contradicting ideas tremendously weaken his argument. Carey argues in the second half of is article that traditional universities pride themselves in regional accreditation, yet many for-profits are accredited too. He then goes on to argue that there is no legitimate way in knowing whether or not the education a student is receiving from a for-profit is better or worse than a traditional universities’ education. The raises the question, aren’t there other ways to figure out if a school has better academic quality? For instance, if one was accepted into Princeton and Grossmount College, the applicant would not question that Princeton has better academic quality and therefore a more substantial degree. Carey’s idea that academic quality can not be proven is weak.

Carey lays out numerous claims in “Why Do You Think They Are Called For-Profits?” published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Even though his strategy of addressing the popular side of opinion is clever in gaining ethos from his scholarly audience, I believe that his overall argumentation in the second half was weak. Carey’s claims in the second half are easily questioned and easily refuted. His overall claim that even though for-profits have problems, they are needed in higher education, because they are innovative and have the resources to solve problems traditional institutions cannot. Although, Carey did use examples for evidence to uphold his main claim that was pro for-profits, there is more outside evidence that refutes his position, and strengthens the opposing views. Carey is not the only one to have an opinion about for-profits. The debate has been going on for quite sometime, and will be going on as long as higher education is around.

Introduction/Critical Questions

02/08/2016

Marli Overgard

 

Introduction

Higher education is complicated. There is no way around the complexity. For-profits, traditional universities, and community colleges all have their faults. Kevin Carey, author of “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profits?” lays out the debate of for-profits. The article came out at a pinnacle time when scandals were occurring in for-profits. Carey claims in the article that for-profits are needed because they are innovative and have the necessary resources to target people who wouldn’t be able to get an education at a traditional university.

 

Critical Questions

Although Carey establishes his argument with evidence, there is questioning on the ethics of for-profits. Just because for-profits can provide education to virtually anyone, does that mean those people should be getting an education?

Carey contradicts his article by stating in the first half of the article that degrees from for-profits are “so substandard that the distinction of legitimacy has no meaning.” In the second half he argues that the while traditional universities argue that for-profit degrees are lower quality, Carey states that there is no evidence to uphold that. He also continues to state that for-profits can buy their accreditation, therefore there is no one in knowing if for-profits or traditional universities are better in that regard. That raises the question of, isn’t there many other ways to determine if certain schools are better than another without looking at accreditation? Therefore, isn’t that point in the argument weak?

Homework for 2/3/16

 

1. The main claim that Carey is attempting to get across in his argument is that the For-Profit system leaves students in unbearable amounts of debt, and they do not take the responsibility. He states that For-Profit investors such as Michael Clifford refuses to admit responsibility for the students taking out so many loans. But, Carey strategically points out that the only reason students are having to take out so many loans is because For-Profit colleges are so expensive. In these paragraphs Carey also claims that the practices of the For-Profit colleges can be seen as unethical. He states how recruiters induce students to take out huge loans even though they know the degree they are getting is would never be able to pay back the debt. The first eleven paragraphs are Carey stating the reasons why the For-Profits are crooked.
2. The main claim in the second half of the article takes a one-eighty degree turn compared to the first half. Carey starts claiming the reasons why For-Profits aid to society in ways traditional universities cannot. His main claim is that traditional universities cannot solve problems that For-Profits can. He claims that For-Profits are innovative and have great technology. The money that For-Profits bring in helps them have the resources to educate minimum workers. Because For-Profits have an abundance amount of money they are able to do ventures that traditional universities cannot.
3. In the beginning half of the text, Carey states that there are horror stories of recruiters aggressively encouraging students to take out loans that their degree will never be able to pay back. In the movie, there were numerous examples of students who were in unimaginable amounts of debt due to unethical recruiting practices. These students were promised a good program, they were promised a job after graduation, and they were reassured that they would easily be able to pay off their debt. Unfortunately, some of these students are never going to be able to use their degree, let alone pay off their hundreds of thousands in debt. The horror stories in the movie backed up Carey’s argument. The whole movie to me seemed against For-Profits. There were not many points supporting the reasons why For-Profits should be around. This makes me question whether or not Carey’s second half of his article is strong enough to uphold. Just because For-Profits have good technology and are innovative, does that mean they should still be allowed? It makes me question whether or not ethics or innovation is more important. Yes, a lot people are being educated at once, but should all of those people actually receive an education. Carey claims that For-Profits have the money to do things traditional universities cannot do. But should education be a business? These are some of the questions that I had while watching the movie and reflecting back on Carey’s article.

Kevin Carey

2/1/16

An Overview on Kevin Carey’s “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?”

 

Kevin Carey is an accredited author of countless books and articles. His educational background focuses around political science and public administration. Carey has built up his creditability on writing about higher education, because that is where a majority of his jobs focused. Carey has worked in budgeting for low-income education funding programs, did policy development for K-12 and higher education, and has spent a lot of time researching on technology and how it effects higher education. To learn about Carey, I simply looked for a credible biography on him and his career. Carey has four books that all deal with the topic of higher education.

“Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” written by Carey, was published in The Chronicles of Higher Education, in July of 2010. The Chronicles of Higher Education is on online and in-print publication. Readers are able to find thousands of articles on the internet or subscribe to a two section newspaper. The Chronicles of Higher Education aims to inform university faculty members on open jobs and information on higher education. Because this publication focuses on an audience of university faculty members, it can be assumed that the demographic is older and educated. Therefore, when Carey wrote his article for the publication, he intentionally used higher-level vocabulary and intricate concepts.

I believe Carey had a few intentions for writing this specific article. First of all, Carey is well versed in the realm of higher education. A lot of his career has focused on making higher education a better situation for all. This article shows the positives and negatives of for-profit universities. Carey most likely wanted to write this article so that more university faculty members would have a clear distinction on what for-profit universities are and how they truly effect our nation.

The main argument Carey seems to be trying to relay to his audience is that that for-profits are to blame for careless practices, but traditional universities cannot solve problems that for-profits have solved. Carey doesn’t seem to take a complete side in this article. Instead, he has claims that reject the For-Profit system, and claims that defend the For-Profit system.

The first major claim in Carey’s article rejects the For-Profit system. He claims that students of For-Profit colleges are being screwed when it comes to taking out loans and paying for their education. Carey mentions how Michael Clifford cannot even admit that For-Profits should take responsibility for whether or not a student can pay back their borrowings, even though the reason they have to borrow is because the For-Profit university is excessively expensive.  Carey also gives statistics on how countless of loans taken out fail in the end.

The second major claim in Carey’s article is that for-profit education is not inherently bad. He states that the respectable parts of for-profits are the technology and innovation. By stating this claim, Carey already makes this over all article two-sided. The third major claim in Carey’s article is that traditional institutions are not able to solve certain problems with the resources they have. For example, a traditional institution would not have been able to give Walmart employees education. For-Profits were able to do so, because they had the resources.

Carey uses many rhetorical strategies to legitimize his argument. One strategy that stuck out to me while researching him was his credibility. In the article Carey states how he spoke personally to Michael Clifford while on his way to visit a higher-education charity. In that one statement, Carey proves that he had personal contact with Clifford and that he truly cares about higher education. Carey’s credibility is a definite strength in this article. On the other hand, I believe this article would have been clearer and stronger if he took a definite stance. It would have been more persuasive if Carey would have chosen a side and then just acknowledged the opposing viewpoints.

Three Readings

1/27/15

 

1.

“Compared to What?” by Claude s. Fischer opened my eyes to such a simple question that should be asked more often. It showed me how much authors generalize statement. By stating “The United States has the best resources in the world.” One should ask “compared to what?” But readers don’t ask that enough. A strong text needs to have good historical context and evidence to provide a substantial argument. To be able to do this, we need to have a better understanding of American or world history. I learned the important lesson that to be a good arguer you need to know the context of your argument. That way if someone says “compared to what?” you can easily fire back.

 

In “How Texas Teaches History,” I learned that texts can come across differently due to grammatical manipulation. This text highlights the importance of style choices, voice choices, and word choice. An author can easily make slavery seem not so bad through the use of passive voice. It is important to recognize when an author is changing the meaning or viewpoint of something through grammatical manipulation. Active voice should have been used in the textbooks about slavery so that children could realize that slavery is in fact a horrible event that happened in our nation’s history. I learned from reading this article that it is important to be aware how easily manipulated the reader can be by the author’s writing choices.

 

2.

Hari’s main claim in “Chasing the Scream,” is that addicts are not created because of the drug they are using. Addicts are created by the circumstances they are in. If someone does not have human connection (love, family, friends, etc.) in their life, they will turn to other things for that connection. That is how Hari believes addicts are created, by lack of happiness.

 

The first major claim in this article is that addiction is not caused by the abundance of chemicals, addiction is caused by the lack of human connection. Hari believes that addicts are only addicts, because they find solace and connection with the drug, something they cannot find with people. That leads to her second major claim. Hari believes that to cut down on drug addicts, we need to decriminalize drug use. She claims that by bringing love and care into addicts lives instead of cutting them off from the world in prison, there would be less addicts.

 

4.

In paragraph 5, Hari addresses the common conception that addiction is started by the drugs themselves. He states that the conception was something he believed before going out and looking into the research. From then on, Hari challenges the common assumption that drugs are the root to addiction. By stating credible studies and experiments, Hari clearly responds to the objections his audience may have.